http://www.islandmp.org/support_oft.php

If we alll signed it "they" might just take some notice.

You don't have to be an Island resident to sign.

Jan

On 28 Jun, 18:11, "Jan"  wrote:
> http://www.islandmp.org/support_oft.php
>
> If we alll signed it "they" might just take some notice.
>
> You don't have to be an Island resident to sign.
>
> Jan

If we haven't signed after nearly a year, why would we now?  It's
nearly July so for the next 2 months the ferries will be running at
capacity, why would they reduce prices?

If you and others are serious about lower ferry fares you need to stop
using them!  Or you could try alternating them one month Red Funnel,
the next Wightlink but that would take organising so my bet is you'll
all just keep paying and carry on moaning.  I can remember back in the
60s & 70s people were moaning about the ferry prices, nothing's
changed!

Watchman wrote:
> On 28 Jun, 18:11, "Jan"  wrote:
>> http://www.islandmp.org/support_oft.php
>>
>> If we alll signed it "they" might just take some notice.
>>
>> You don't have to be an Island resident to sign.
>>
>> Jan
>
> If we haven't signed after nearly a year, why would we now?  It's
> nearly July so for the next 2 months the ferries will be running at
> capacity, why would they reduce prices?
>
> If you and others are serious about lower ferry fares you need to stop
> using them!  Or you could try alternating them one month Red Funnel,
> the next Wightlink but that would take organising so my bet is you'll
> all just keep paying and carry on moaning.  I can remember back in the
> 60s & 70s people were moaning about the ferry prices, nothing's
> changed!


Well I didn't know about the petition til a week ago ! So there's probably 
others who didn't know either,
Would it do any harm to sign? I don't think so.

Jan

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:11:02 +0100, "Jan"  wrote:

>http://www.islandmp.org/support_oft.php
>
>If we alll signed it "they" might just take some notice.
>
>You don't have to be an Island resident to sign.
>
>Jan 
>
You have posted  to a newsgroup set up by
the government to plug the gaps created by the abysmal
failure of their Psychiatric Care in the Community Policy. 
The uk.local hierarchy was devised to provide an outlet for
individuals who would otherwise spending their days sitting
at home wearing an aluminium foil hat waiting for a full moon
to rise. It was hoped that this would reduce the incidence
of nutters out there howling at the moon and frightening the
shit out of their neighbours. Another of HMGs aims and 
objectives was to provide a distraction to take their minds
of the problem of who they were going to knife to death next.
Unfortunately, this group has been taken over by the 
articulate lower middle classes who have succeeding in 
driving HMGs target audience away.Independant research has
shown that it was the amount and quality of the inane drivel,
called small talk which the middle classes are adept at, which
had the effect of doing their heads in. They left to
protect what was left of their sanity. Saddly this has happened
to the whole of uk.local. hierarchy.  

This newsgroup is a very good example of another HMG failure.

"Jan"  wrote in message 
news:6cnsq9F3hiqsqU1@mid.individual.net...
> Watchman wrote:
>> On 28 Jun, 18:11, "Jan"  wrote:
>>> http://www.islandmp.org/support_oft.php
>>>
>>> If we alll signed it "they" might just take some notice.
>>>
>>> You don't have to be an Island resident to sign.
>>>
>>> Jan
>>
>> If we haven't signed after nearly a year, why would we now?  It's
>> nearly July so for the next 2 months the ferries will be running at
>> capacity, why would they reduce prices?
>>
>> If you and others are serious about lower ferry fares you need to stop
>> using them!  Or you could try alternating them one month Red Funnel,
>> the next Wightlink but that would take organising so my bet is you'll
>> all just keep paying and carry on moaning.  I can remember back in the
>> 60s & 70s people were moaning about the ferry prices, nothing's
>> changed!
>
>
> Well I didn't know about the petition til a week ago ! So there's probably 
> others who didn't know either,
> Would it do any harm to sign? I don't think so.
>

I thought it had been well publicised.  I'm only a (frequent) visitor and it 
keeps coming to my notice. But the last I heard, there were only 3,000 odd 
signatories.
The danger of having a petition is that you might, as in this case, 
demonstrate how little support there is for your proposal. The ferry 
operators can use it themselves - over 95% of residents are not discontented 
with the fares!
Of course the fares are extremely high and bear no relation to the actual 
operating costs, as demonstrated by the fact that the short trip to Yarmouth 
is priced the same as the much longer one to Fishbourne by the same company. 
But what you and I are paying for is NOT the operating cost but the 
highly-leveraged purchase cost of Wightlink which earns interest for its 
owner's managed funds. I'm not familiar with Red Funnel's ownership but I'll 
bet the same thing applies. They do actually have to charge the fares they 
do in order to maintain the business - that's the basis on which they bought 
it.
It's extremely unlikely that any regulatory sanction can be attempted, and 
if it was it would be doomed to years of argument, appeal and ultimate 
failure. There is only one way to provide lower fares and that is 
competition - a new crossing operated by a different company. That could be 
either a fixed link or a new ferry company.  Either of those requires a big 
investment in infrastructure, particularly in land purchase and connecting 
roads at both ends since Redlink have the existing terminals nicely tied up 
between them.  That investment would have to be paid back, so for many years 
the new company could not greatly undercut the existing ones.
So we are all stuck with the status quo. Just like rising fuel and food 
costs, we just have to live with it.

X-No-Archive: yes

"Richard_G"  wrote in message 
news:6cp4n5F3h5eeiU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Jan"  wrote in message 
> news:6cnsq9F3hiqsqU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Watchman wrote:
>>> On 28 Jun, 18:11, "Jan"  wrote:
>>>> http://www.islandmp.org/support_oft.php

>>> If we haven't signed after nearly a year, why would we now?  It's
>>> nearly July so for the next 2 months the ferries will be running at
>>> capacity, why would they reduce prices?
>>>
>>> If you and others are serious about lower ferry fares you need to stop
>>> using them!  Or you could try alternating them one month Red Funnel,
>>> the next Wightlink but that would take organising so my bet is you'll
>>> all just keep paying and carry on moaning.  I can remember back in the
>>> 60s & 70s people were moaning about the ferry prices, nothing's
>>> changed!


>> Well I didn't know about the petition til a week ago ! So there's 
>> probably others who didn't know either,
>> Would it do any harm to sign? I don't think so.


> I thought it had been well publicised.  I'm only a (frequent) visitor and 
> it keeps coming to my notice. But the last I heard, there were only 3,000 
> odd signatories.
> The danger of having a petition is that you might, as in this case, 
> demonstrate how little support there is for your proposal. The ferry 
> operators can use it themselves - over 95% of residents are not 
> discontented with the fares!
> Of course the fares are extremely high and bear no relation to the actual 
> operating costs, as demonstrated by the fact that the short trip to 
> Yarmouth is priced the same as the much longer one to Fishbourne by the 
> same company. But what you and I are paying for is NOT the operating cost 
> but the highly-leveraged purchase cost of Wightlink which earns interest 
> for its owner's managed funds. I'm not familiar with Red Funnel's 
> ownership but I'll bet the same thing applies. They do actually have to 
> charge the fares they do in order to maintain the business - that's the 
> basis on which they bought it.
> It's extremely unlikely that any regulatory sanction can be attempted, and 
> if it was it would be doomed to years of argument, appeal and ultimate 
> failure. There is only one way to provide lower fares and that is 
> competition - a new crossing operated by a different company. That could 
> be either a fixed link or a new ferry company.  Either of those requires a 
> big investment in infrastructure, particularly in land purchase and 
> connecting roads at both ends since Redlink have the existing terminals 
> nicely tied up between them.  That investment would have to be paid back, 
> so for many years the new company could not greatly undercut the existing 
> ones.
> So we are all stuck with the status quo. Just like rising fuel and food 
> costs, we just have to live with it.


There is, actually, a monopolies commission that 'looks into'  commercial 
trading situations where either one, or a small number (..often cartelled) 
of companies operate against the good of the wider population or accessors 
to that market.
The allegation here, by our MP and others is that there IS a monopoly 
situation on the ferries to the IOW and that monopoly is creating false, 
inflated pricing.
It is difficult, frankly, not to understand that (unlike the dover/france 
routes)  two companies - actually one if we considered specific crossing 
routes - are clearly a monopoly and as such can charge any damn price they 
choose..  it doesn't have to be £30 - £90  ish    .....  it could be twice 
or three times that..!  Without regulation there is no *real* price 
whatsoever.
The owners of Wightlink are a smart, multi national, successful and 
profitable bank and will maximise their investment if left unchecked.  The 
last look at this situation in 1991/92  did find a monopoly situation 
existed but fell short of doing anything about it.....  approaching 20 years 
after it may well be time to rethink this situation..

http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/reports/1992/315crosssolent.htm



Mark

"mark"  wrote in message 
news:9YudnaUUV8lUHvrVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> "Richard_G"  wrote in message 
> news:6cp4n5F3h5eeiU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Jan"  wrote in message 
>> news:6cnsq9F3hiqsqU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Watchman wrote:
>>>> On 28 Jun, 18:11, "Jan"  wrote:
>>>>> http://www.islandmp.org/support_oft.php
>
>>>> If we haven't signed after nearly a year, why would we now?  It's
>>>> nearly July so for the next 2 months the ferries will be running at
>>>> capacity, why would they reduce prices?
>>>>
>>>> If you and others are serious about lower ferry fares you need to stop
>>>> using them!  Or you could try alternating them one month Red Funnel,
>>>> the next Wightlink but that would take organising so my bet is you'll
>>>> all just keep paying and carry on moaning.  I can remember back in the
>>>> 60s & 70s people were moaning about the ferry prices, nothing's
>>>> changed!
>
>
>>> Well I didn't know about the petition til a week ago ! So there's 
>>> probably others who didn't know either,
>>> Would it do any harm to sign? I don't think so.
>
>
>> I thought it had been well publicised.  I'm only a (frequent) visitor and 
>> it keeps coming to my notice. But the last I heard, there were only 3,000 
>> odd signatories.
>> The danger of having a petition is that you might, as in this case, 
>> demonstrate how little support there is for your proposal. The ferry 
>> operators can use it themselves - over 95% of residents are not 
>> discontented with the fares!
>> Of course the fares are extremely high and bear no relation to the actual 
>> operating costs, as demonstrated by the fact that the short trip to 
>> Yarmouth is priced the same as the much longer one to Fishbourne by the 
>> same company. But what you and I are paying for is NOT the operating cost 
>> but the highly-leveraged purchase cost of Wightlink which earns interest 
>> for its owner's managed funds. I'm not familiar with Red Funnel's 
>> ownership but I'll bet the same thing applies. They do actually have to 
>> charge the fares they do in order to maintain the business - that's the 
>> basis on which they bought it.
>> It's extremely unlikely that any regulatory sanction can be attempted, 
>> and if it was it would be doomed to years of argument, appeal and 
>> ultimate failure. There is only one way to provide lower fares and that 
>> is competition - a new crossing operated by a different company. That 
>> could be either a fixed link or a new ferry company.  Either of those 
>> requires a big investment in infrastructure, particularly in land 
>> purchase and connecting roads at both ends since Redlink have the 
>> existing terminals nicely tied up between them.  That investment would 
>> have to be paid back, so for many years the new company could not greatly 
>> undercut the existing ones.
>> So we are all stuck with the status quo. Just like rising fuel and food 
>> costs, we just have to live with it.
>
>
> There is, actually, a monopolies commission that 'looks into'  commercial 
> trading situations where either one, or a small number (..often cartelled) 
> of companies operate against the good of the wider population or accessors 
> to that market.
> The allegation here, by our MP and others is that there IS a monopoly 
> situation on the ferries to the IOW and that monopoly is creating false, 
> inflated pricing.
> It is difficult, frankly, not to understand that (unlike the dover/france 
> routes)  two companies - actually one if we considered specific crossing 
> routes - are clearly a monopoly and as such can charge any damn price they 
> choose..  it doesn't have to be £30 - £90  ish    .....  it could be twice 
> or three times that..!  Without regulation there is no *real* price 
> whatsoever.
> The owners of Wightlink are a smart, multi national, successful and 
> profitable bank and will maximise their investment if left unchecked.  The 
> last look at this situation in 1991/92  did find a monopoly situation 
> existed but fell short of doing anything about it.....  approaching 20 
> years after it may well be time to rethink this situation..
>
> http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/reports/1992/315crosssolent.htm
>

Yes Mark, I'm aware of the commission's responsibilities and history.
Breaking up a perceived monopoly is no easy matter. Consider the case of 
Ferrovial owning all of the major London airports, with not even a second 
operator in sight. There is still no definite proposal to split that up, and 
if/when it appears it will be subject to all sorts of appeal and delay.

What you have to bear in mind is that before buying Wightlink, Macquarie 
will as part of their due diligence have spoken at length to all the 
relevant regulators, and assured themselves that they could meet all 
operating requirements including avoidance of charges of monopoly. They will 
very likely have given informal assurances as to their behaviour 
particularly vis a vis Red Funnel. They have after all been buying up 
infrastructure around the world for many years and have vast experience of 
dealing with governments and regulators.

In addition they can present their accounts to show a very small amount of 
profit due to the huge amount of debt that they have to service.

About the only suggestion that could easily be made to open up competition 
within the existing routes, would be to force them to allow third-party 
ships into their own terminals. As a regular user you will understand that 
this would be entirely impractical and perhaps even unsafe, with different 
companies' ferries queueing up in the shipping lanes to use a single berth.